I've found Pointys twitter, paying for a blue tick too
General Football Gary Linekar
- Thread Starter Eat Y'self Fitter
- Start date
I've found Pointys twitter, paying for a blue tick too
PointyHead
Ballon d'Or Winner
I've found Pointys twitter, paying for a blue tick too
Heh, you've got my view on IR35 entirely wrong.
It's a piss poor rule trying to solve a minor problem. Needs to be scrapped.
What it's done is expose HMRC massively; create a tool to generate a status determination of inside/outside for companies, contractors to use yet remove questions that lead to outside determinations and indeed state in court they won't abide by their own tool! Granted, working practices matter most, but... add in the loan charges and the ridiculously evil retrospective powers they have, HMRC needs gutting.
The issue of buses around PAYE/NI do need addressing, no disagreement on that score, but rather than listen to tax experts, successive governments of all party have gone the bonkers route we see now, Simplifying taxation would also help.
HMRC have attacked Lineker's determination, not those of Clarkson or Neil. Throwing those names in is thus pointless - if Lineker loses the case, then he's a disguised employee and thus comparisons are moot.
The HMRC thing is a total red herring. I don’t know why it keeps being mentioned.
If we were to accept that Lineker, whose presenting fees are paid by the BBC, should be bound by their impartiality rules, then we should expect that Clarkson and Neil, whose presenting fees were also paid by the BBC, to be similarly bound. More so, in fact, in respect of Neil, as he was employed as a Political presenter.
Agreed?
PointyHead
Ballon d'Or Winner
Disagree, there's a difference between an employee, bound by impartiality and independent contractors who are not. That's the issue and the reason the HMRC case will be important.
I suspect Lineker will win the case after the Lorraine Kelly outcome even though I think the defence in that one was a bit bonkers but the precedent has been set. For me, presenters fail on Direction & Control plus unfettered right of substitution, but nothing surprises me around tax law cases anymore.
The Christa Ackroyd case showed the BBC know full well what they were doing; Paxman said that the BBC required presenters provide services via a PSC, meaning the BBC avoided paying PAYE/NI.
PointyHead
Ballon d'Or Winner
Saying that, there is one part of Lineker's defence that I do agree with, which is that finding him a disguised employee leads to double taxation - he's liable for the full amount despite having already paid some tax, there's no provision for offsetting.
So if he's paid 500k but if found liable for 4.9m, then the total tax is 500k already paid + the 4.9m, so overall total is 5.4m rather than 4.9m - 500k, 4.4m. That's not close to justice at all.
So if he's paid 500k but if found liable for 4.9m, then the total tax is 500k already paid + the 4.9m, so overall total is 5.4m rather than 4.9m - 500k, 4.4m. That's not close to justice at all.
WEED CLUB 
Like you’ve said the whole system needs a massive reform there’s so many grey areas with that IR35 it’s near enough useless, it shouldn’t be this difficult to calculate people paying the correct amount along with it being so easy to legally avoid paying tax
PointyHead
Ballon d'Or Winner
IR35 was brought in to solve a problem nowhere near as bad as what was claimed. HMRC have routinely been embarassed over it.
It needs to go, 100%.
He thinks that the tax and employed vs through a production company no -argument somehow invalidates the completely correct point that presenters of BBC programmes in the past have done exactly the same as Lineker with nothing said
You're just muddying the waters. Your argument was that Neil and Clarkson were somehow exempt because they were presenting programmes made by independent production companies. Which they weren't.
PointyHead
Ballon d'Or Winner
The point was also that they were not employees. My erroneous view that they were independent production companies fed into that.
Like it or not, if Lineker loses the HMRC case, then his status is as an employee of the BBC at the times in question. Neil, Clarkson are / were not with HMRC not challenging outside IR35 determinations.
Strange that we have not seen your criticism of the clear and obvious hypocrisy of the BBC in their treatment of similarly employed people then isn't it?
Oh wait no it isn't strange its exactly like you
You're making various assumptions to fit your narrative
1) You're assuming that the BBC's social media policy discriminates between permanent staff on the BBC payroll, temporary staff engaged by the BBC who should either be on the BBC payroll or are paid via umbrella companies/PSC's like employees, or contractors engaged by Ltd Co's or similar who are paid like businesses. Do you have a basis for that assumption?
2) You're assuming that the lack of any press about an HMRC challenge to Clarkson or Neil's payroll status means that they weren't employed by the BBC. That's just a guess. They may have been directly on the BBC payroll, paying the usual amount of Tax & NI. They may have been working in IR35-caught assignments, worked through their PSC or an umbrella, and had the payroll managed accordingly. We'll likely never know.
It's all just a load of guff about arcane tax legislation that does not hide the more obvious and clear inconsistencies between how left- or right- leaning presenters have been treated.
PointyHead
Ballon d'Or Winner
1) Yeah, precedents in IR35 case law. Direction and Control ring any bells? If someone is subject to the same work related constraints, it's a big marker - but not in and of itself proof of - employment. That's one of the pillars of it, right of substitution too. Mutuality of obligation, he's probably ok on that score.
2) Paxman has said in a previous IR35 case that BBC were pushing presenters to be employed via PSCs. If they were inside, then it's a stretch to imagine virtually all presenters weren't, which is a bad look for the BBC as it's a cynical attempt to avoid PAYE /NI.
Regardless of the tax issues, inconsistencies? Lineker hasn't just made a single tweet, he's made repeated tweets... this last one probably the final straw.
You've ignored my first point in favour of taking us even further down the IR35 rabbit hole. I'm not sure why, and I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks that off-payroll worker arrangements are irrelevant to what is actually being discussed.
Did Lineker have the same obligations in respect of social media as Clarkson, Neil and others? Nobody's shown me anything to indicate the contrary.
Were Lineker, Clarkson and Neil generally outspoken on political issues, in excess of a "single tweet"? Definitely
Did the government get their knickers in a twist about Neil or Clarkson? Nope. Why not, I wonder?
PointyHead
Ballon d'Or Winner
First point, I gave the basis for my view....
Nobody has shown anything either way.
If Clarkson can Neil were generally not employees whereas Lineker is, moot point.
Maybe "knickers in a twist" due to him spouting utter, offensive bollocks possibly?
Rattled
Again, you are choosing to make assumptions about the respective employment statuses of Lineker, Neil and Clarkson to fit your narrative. It's pure speculation on your part, to prop up the tortuous argument you (for some reason) want to continue to make.
